D&D 5E People didn't like the Psionic Talent Die

[Mistwell]

Okay. Nothing I said contradicted that, so it’s a bit weird as a reply.

it’s also frankly a bit weird to just repeatedly quote that as reply to people’s posts.

"I think it was more about the mechanic.." is contradicted by "There were a lot of people bouncing...on there being a different mechanic at all."

He made it clear it's not how the mechanic worked that was at issue...it was that there was a different mechanic of any kind involved. That was the issue people had, the existence of any new mechanic there. So he already addressed claim that it's about how the mechanic worked. It's not - it's about mechanics being different from the norm, as a generalization.

 

[Undrave]

You don’t see how kludgey all that is?

Hmm... No? It's a straight forward build that does what you seem to want? Why would it be kludgey? There's no weird MC shenanigans involved, Variant Human is pretty popular and so is Magic Initiate so it's not really out of the ordinary. It's just 'Pick the spells with the Psionic flavor'.

It's a perfectly fine Psionic Bard build.

And more important, it doesn't require learning any new mechanics.

Heck, flavor Magic Initiate: Sorecer (to pick up Message, Friends and Charm Person) as a sort of natural gift and the Bardic training was to hone it?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Hmm... No? It's a straight forward build that does what you seem to want? Why would it be kludgey? There's no weird MC shenanigans involved, Variant Human is pretty popular and so is Magic Initiate so it's not really out of the ordinary. It's just 'Pick the spells with the Psionic flavor'.

It's a perfectly fine Psionic Bard build.

And more important, it doesn't require learning any new mechanics.

Heck, flavor Magic Initiate: Sorecer (to pick up Message, Friends and Charm Person) as a sort of natural gift and the Bardic training was to hone it?

I see what you are saying , and I'm not arguing with you that what you propose could be reflavored as a psion....but at the end of the day it's still, mechanically, a bard.

I am a HUGE proponent of reskinning and morphing a class into something that it wasn't designed to be, but it isn't the same as having a separate class that has a mechanical difference.

There really isn't a huge reason why a paladin couldn't have been a subclass of cleric, or that a ranger couldn't have been a subclass of druid when the game was designed, other than people expect them to be more distant than a subclass allows.

 

[Undrave]

I see what you are saying , and I'm not arguing with you that what you propose could be reflavored as a psion....but at the end of the day it's still, mechanically, a bard.

I am a HUGE proponent of reskinning and morphing a class into something that it wasn't designed to be, but it isn't the same as having a separate class that has a mechanical difference.

There really isn't a huge reason why a paladin couldn't have been a subclass of cleric, or that a ranger couldn't have been a subclass of druid when the game was designed, other than people expect them to be more distant than a subclass allows.

For what its worth, I actually agree with you. I'm just wondering what heck do people expect when they want a Psionic Class that doesn't 'use new mechanics'? Such a thing would feel WAY too redundant to me since we have the Bard and Enchanter available. Feels to me like they COULD just 'sit down and play the cool thing' RIGHT NOW and not ruin it for people who LIKE new mechanics...

I'm a bit bitter

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For what its worth, I actually agree with you. I'm just wondering what heck do people expect when they want a Psionic Class that doesn't 'use new mechanics'? Such a thing would feel WAY too redundant to me since we have the Bard and Enchanter available. Feels to me like they COULD just 'sit down and play the cool thing' RIGHT NOW and not ruin it for people who LIKE new mechanics...

I'm a bit bitter

It think the real issue is "how much do the respondents really want a psionic class?". If we forget about the makeup of this forum, because of the game's expansion an awful lot of 5e players were new to D&D for 5e. Which means they have no particular attachment to any version of psionics, and Dark Sun is just something they may have heard mentioned. So, to them, there is nothing special about a psionic class. Your Psi Knight is simply competing with your Rune Knight - which do you prefer?

 

[Helldritch]

It think the real issue is "how much do the respondents really want a psionic class?". If we forget about the makeup of this forum, because of the game's expansion an awful lot of 5e players were new to D&D for 5e. Which means they have no particular attachment to any version of psionics, and Dark Sun is just something they may have heard mentioned. So, to them, there is nothing special about a psionic class. Your Psi Knight is simply competing with your Rune Knight - which do you prefer?

I could not have said it better. My second group never heard of Darksun and consider psionics as something that have no place in D&D. My older players would love a reiteration of DS.

 

[Charlaquin]

That’s a lot of waiting for basics (...) and a lot of baggage that doesn’t support the concept

Welcome to 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I could not have said it better. My second group never heard of Darksun and consider psionics as something that have no place in D&D. My older players would love a reiteration of DS.

I wouldn't go as far as to say as "having no place" - more "complete indifference". It's only people coming from earlier editions who see a psionics shaped hole in 5e. And the term "psionics" has slipped from common usage in SF in general. You might as well ask them if they want wamfoozles. If wamfoozles looks fun and exiting they might go for it, but there is no sense that what 5e is really lacking is wamfoozles.

 

[Helldritch]

I wouldn't go as far as to say as "having no place" - more "complete indifference". It's only people coming from earlier editions who see a psionics shaped hole in 5e. And the term "psionics" has slipped from common usage in SF in general. You might as well ask them if they want wamfoozles. If wamfoozles looks fun and exiting they might go for it, but there is no sense that what 5e is really lacking is wamfoozles.

Nope, they really do not want psi in their game. They see psi as something for sci-fi only. One of them even said:" If I wanted to play stupid Star Wars, I'd go for SW game. This is D&D. Don't mess with my D&D."
For some reason, they don't like my favorite movie. And they associate psi with SW. They are not sci-fi fans.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wouldn't go as far as to say as "having no place" - more "complete indifference". It's only people coming from earlier editions who see a psionics shaped hole in 5e. And the term "psionics" has slipped from common usage in SF in general. You might as well ask them if they want wamfoozles. If wamfoozles looks fun and exiting they might go for it, but there is no sense that what 5e is really lacking is wamfoozles.

This brings up an interesting point that was kinda danced around earlier in this thread, that the standards by which potential new 5e material is being judged are very different than the standards by which the initital material in the Next playtest was judged. The PHB classes, subclasses, races, backgrounds, and all the rest, lived and died by how much they resonated with fans of previous editions. Nowadays, with the enormous influx of new players, they’re the ones UA material has to appeal to. And they don’t have the same baggage we do.